You are trying to derail the conversation by dragging me into a discussion on quantum mechanics. It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

No, I am trying to get you to see where your thinking fails. You say Relativity is not true because it is not intuitive and not based on assumptions from regular observations. Using that logic then QM certainly cannot be true either, because it is as far from intuitive as any scientific theory and no matter how ones defines “regular observations” they cannot apply to QM.

Gdb,

I can’t help with your inability to follow the logic. I am confident others will be able to.

Your confidence is misplaced.

Signature

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

I can’t help with your inability to follow the logic. I am confident others will be able to.

Could it be that you are too confident that your argumentation follows logic? At least Darron doesn’t share your confidence in your logic. And at least a few participants at the science forums ‘could not follow’ your logic either.

At least it is clear that you do not take the challenge to present your theory in an unambiguous, clearer and shorter form. And again, you avoid arguments brought against your position. The same as you did at the science forums. It is also telling you do not give an honest answer to Darron’s question.

I can’t help with your inability to follow the logic. I am confident others will be able to.

Could it be that you are too confident that your argumentation follows logic? At least Darron doesn’t share your confidence in your logic. And at least a few participants at the science forums ‘could not follow’ your logic either.

At least it is clear that you do not take the challenge to present your theory in an unambiguous, clearer and shorter form. And again, you avoid arguments brought against your position. The same as you did at the science forums. It is also telling you do not give an honest answer to Darron’s question.

My confidence merely indicates my motive to proceed, not the accuracy of the logic. And I only checked out that one forum (not forums) and do not know the qualifications of all the arguers that I posted with. At most, it was only a handful for which I wouldn’t engage in due to the prejudice of the operator of the site.

In regards to Darron’s request, the nature of the argument shifts from relativity to quantum mechanics, a discussion that besides being irrelevant at this moment, takes or distracts the issue to a deep discussion on the foundations of quantum mechanics. And no Darron, I don’t find quantum mechanics non-intuitive. I do disagree with the added and unnecessary declaration of the Uncertainty Principle as being a reflection of how reality actually is; I think that it is a matter of practical measurements of observations only that make it useful, not its actual determination of reality. Where Einstein Relativity fails is in its explanation based on a unnatural capability to perceive (non-intuitive), the quantum mechanics still holds because the Uncertainty Principle isn’t even a necessary founding principle. Where quantum mechanical theories may create some odd explanation due to a misinterpretation of the observations, Relativity (Einstein’s) misinterprets the observations as the confirmation for the predetermined explanation. Successful predictions alone isn’t sufficient to provide justification for its authority. If someone were to predict the local weather accurately 100% in every instance, as odd as it may seem to question for some, it could be sincerely coincidental, or the reasoning that person gives may just as easily not match some other real different reason for him/her to determine—they could claim to be psychic but in reality be using some other untold means of determining it.

Signature

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

My confidence merely indicates my motive to proceed, not the accuracy of the logic.

Very well. I can confirm that…

Scott Mayers - 10 August 2013 09:37 AM

And I only checked out that one forum (not forums) and do not know the qualifications of all the arguers that I posted with.

You would have got much more out of that forum if you would have given your ‘1-hour-program’ example, your argumentation, and then ask them for comment why it is correct or wrong. Instead you choose the header ‘Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity’. You say that a theory is wrong that builds the basis of physics, of empirically proven physics. How would you expect people to react when you present yourself with ‘hey, your basic ideas are wrong, and I know this. Your logic is wrong!’.

Scott Mayers - 10 August 2013 09:37 AM

I don’t find quantum mechanics non-intuitive.

No, of course, it is very intuitive that light and electrons both behave like waves and particles. Maybe you present us in another thread an intuitive picture of the double slit experiment with single photons…

Scott Mayers - 10 August 2013 09:37 AM

quantum mechanics still holds because the Uncertainty Principle isn’t even a necessary founding principle.

That’s true. It is not a founding principle, but it follows logically from quantum physics’ first principles, and not ever a single way has been found to make measurements that are preciser than the uncertainty principle say you can. I could say more about that, if you want you can open another thread for it…

True too. But a better theory must at least predict the same phenomena (especially when these are empirically proven (no clocks near the speed of light, sorry)), with less added entities and/or principles (Ockham’s razor) than the rival theory. If two theories score exactly equal on these terms, then they are equivalent, and then, but only then, you can prefer the theory that is based on more intuitive principle. But that is a question of preference, not of authority. I am wondering why you use that word…

I can’t help with your inability to follow the logic. I am confident others will be able to.

Could it be that you are too confident that your argumentation follows logic? At least Darron doesn’t share your confidence in your logic. And at least a few participants at the science forums ‘could not follow’ your logic either.

At least it is clear that you do not take the challenge to present your theory in an unambiguous, clearer and shorter form. And again, you avoid arguments brought against your position. The same as you did at the science forums. It is also telling you do not give an honest answer to Darron’s question.

My confidence merely indicates my motive to proceed, not the accuracy of the logic. And I only checked out that one forum (not forums) and do not know the qualifications of all the arguers that I posted with. At most, it was only a handful for which I wouldn’t engage in due to the prejudice of the operator of the site.

In regards to Darron’s request, the nature of the argument shifts from relativity to quantum mechanics, a discussion that besides being irrelevant at this moment, takes or distracts the issue to a deep discussion on the foundations of quantum mechanics. And no Darron, I don’t find quantum mechanics non-intuitive. I do disagree with the added and unnecessary declaration of the Uncertainty Principle as being a reflection of how reality actually is; I think that it is a matter of practical measurements of observations only that make it useful, not its actual determination of reality. Where Einstein Relativity fails is in its explanation based on a unnatural capability to perceive (non-intuitive), the quantum mechanics still holds because the Uncertainty Principle isn’t even a necessary founding principle. Where quantum mechanical theories may create some odd explanation due to a misinterpretation of the observations, Relativity (Einstein’s) misinterprets the observations as the confirmation for the predetermined explanation. Successful predictions alone isn’t sufficient to provide justification for its authority. If someone were to predict the local weather accurately 100% in every instance, as odd as it may seem to question for some, it could be sincerely coincidental, or the reasoning that person gives may just as easily not match some other real different reason for him/her to determine—they could claim to be psychic but in reality be using some other untold means of determining it.

GdB - 10 August 2013 10:33 AM

Scott Mayers - 10 August 2013 09:37 AM

I don’t find quantum mechanics non-intuitive.

No, of course, it is very intuitive that light and electrons both behave like waves and particles. Maybe you present us in another thread an intuitive picture of the double slit experiment with single photons…

Yeah, I’ll do this elsewhere. For me, I don’t see the contradiction of a phenomena to have both wave and particle properties in the least. A ball rolling down a hill, for example, represents both the physical aspects of the ball (without motion) and its relationship to its present motion. Its rolling is cyclic which defines wave properties.

Signature

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Yeah, I’ll do this elsewhere. For me, I don’t see the contradiction of a phenomena to have both wave and particle properties in the least. A ball rolling down a hill, for example, represents both the physical aspects of the ball (without motion) and its relationship to its present motion. Its rolling is cyclic which defines wave properties.

Oh dear. I assume it is also your daily experience that you see balls interfering with each other? Also with only one ball at a time? Maybe you can make a video for us that shows us that phenomenon?

About my suggestions for other fora: I found these two:

physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70

Don’t forget to read the FAQ! Then bring your ideas in the form of a question, e.g. take your 1-hour-program example, ask how this apparent contradiction is solved in SR. Then see if the answers make sense to you. But as it says in the FAQ, don’t ever say ‘SR/Einstein is wrong’, or on any answer say ‘that is wrong!’. Pretend convincingly that you are trying to understand it.

And this one:

thephysicsforum.com/special-general-relativity

The Special Relativity Primer is very good. You can tell us where the error is. Don’t do it there, you will be thrown out in no time… Take the same attitude as described above.

I’m going to stop reading any post that starts out with, “Einstein was wrong.” or that any other respected scientist was wrong about something essential. It usually is followed by incomprehensible blather. I would suggest that anyone who thinks a respected scientist was wrong try getting their ideas published in a peer reviewed journal. That should be the first step—well, after getting a decent science-oriented education, anyway.

Yes, Lois nailed it. We’ve spent three weeks going around with someone who thinks he can best Albert Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz and David Hilbert. I will happily eat a barbecued crow when Mr. Mayers wins the Nobel Prize for proving Einstein wrong.

Signature

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

I think I am a bit crazy too, to try to convince a crackpot that his argumentation is wrong. When a layperson thinks he can correct a theory that already belongs to established science for more than 100 years, one can already be certain he left sure ground, so such a project is doomed to fail from the beginning. But it was a good occasion to refresh my memory about SR.

Darron, I don’t think Scott will invite us at his Nobel-party.

PS I realise the word ‘project’ is ambiguous in above sentence. But it fits for both meanings…

Well, thanks for the unnecessary insults, but was it meant to convince me to your way of thinking? As I see it, you guys are severely lacking credibility in that you cannot follow logic. I certainly do not accord any of you as representatives of scientific wisdom. Science is more than having the ability to pass tests that show you follow the curricula. And repeating that I lack the understanding of any of the science doesn’t make it so.

You guys have not even attempted to present what or where you presume that I err in my arguments. Instead, you have focused your attacks on irrelevancies. You have dictated to me that I do not understand the present science. You have not established that my knowledge is lacking anything in the present arguments. You have not explained the relevance of requiring me to present knowledge beyond the scope of this area. You have not reduced my arguments to an absurdity, via reasoning.

You have shown that you prefer to insult me for not supporting your common belief. I suggest you abort skepticism and atheism since I am more than certain that we are in the vast minority. You’re clearly hypocrites. Provide a reason why I must place my faith in you. You have not shown your superiority of reasoning but demonstrated your abilities to attempt rhetorical diversions.

You have shown that you do not respect logical argument and especially that obtained by premises of observation, something you only pretend that you adhere to. For instance, besides your own ignorance to the Cosmological Principles (both Perfect and Non-), you haven’t addressed how or why you would hold to the belief that time itself does not require consistency against our empirical capabilities to determine it. If it is your view that the popular view in the present paradigm is to hold, your trust in it holds the same accountability to justify it as a Christian is to their positive presumptions. If you were so much wiser than me, you should be responsible to justify your particular understanding by addressing the premises of the very contemporary science you believe in and for which I referred to in my arguments as a basis for the skepticism.

By your current attitudes and behaviors, you have demonstrated that you are no different than cyber-bullies who can hide behind anonymous display names and gang up with popular supporters. I only feel sorry for you and will not be beaten just because of it. My arguments are precise and direct at issue. The logic is impeccable. Either address the logic and my premises which they are based on or don’t engage in conversation with me.

Examples:

Lois - 11 August 2013 05:34 PM

I’m going to stop reading any post that starts out with, “Einstein was wrong.” or that any other respected scientist was wrong about something essential. It usually is followed by incomprehensible blather. I would suggest that anyone who thinks a respected scientist was wrong try getting their ideas published in a peer reviewed journal. That should be the first step—well, after getting a decent science-oriented education, anyway.

Lois

And you should accept then that a religious person should ignore, “God is wrong” or “God is not real” for the same moronic reasons. Should the society that you want to encourage open skepticism not also claim how such philosophical dialectic in skeptical inquiry is just as “incomprehensible blather” to them? Should they not recommend you to their own particular church for approval because their founders were respected? And, even though they might not be aware of your own invested time reading the Bible, should they not equally recommend a ‘decent’ Bible-oriented education? (Since you disagree with something regarding it, it MUST be certain that you didn’t actually read nor interpret it properly!)

GdB - 10 August 2013 10:33 AM

Scott Mayers - 10 August 2013 09:37 AM

My confidence merely indicates my motive to proceed, not the accuracy of the logic.

Very well. I can confirm that…

Scott Mayers - 10 August 2013 09:37 AM

And I only checked out that one forum (not forums) and do not know the qualifications of all the arguers that I posted with.

You would have got much more out of that forum if you would have given your ‘1-hour-program’ example, your argumentation, and then ask them for comment why it is correct or wrong. Instead you choose the header ‘Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity’. You say that a theory is wrong that builds the basis of physics, of empirically proven physics. How would you expect people to react when you present yourself with ‘hey, your basic ideas are wrong, and I know this. Your logic is wrong!’.

You’re consistently addressing how I present myself not the argument itself. I’m confused at how you think that abusive attacks of yours to my nature gives you preferential wisdom of what accounts for more appropriate behavior? Your insistence that such a lowly scum like myself should behave with more respect towards those in authority without expecting repercussions is very assuming. At least, explain to me how my title imposed an emotional and personal insult, rather than a logical claim; Why should I be beaten for having views that pose no similar or related threat? The title itself is not the actual content. While it may say, ‘hey, your basic ideas are wrong…’, the content provides the justification for it.

Darron, you kept insisting that I have a requirement to not disprove a case (forget falsifiablity, right) but present only the kind of argument that puts forward a supported case, a mathematical equation or two for nice etiquette, create a new prediction (the old ones are not apparently capable of being wrong if they match a successful correspondence. So I guess that should make Jesus’ predictions be considered true only until such a newer prediction was available?), and for Christ’s sake, behave by showing my obedience to the proprietary establishments of the publication process (The Internet doesn’t count since it is free and not subject to the owners of the science magazines to approve or dismiss based on their prejudices.)

And those of you few who think that any forum that places establishment to uphold a particular viewpoint or be banished to the ghetto or concentration camps deserves no respect from me and shall never complain if and when it happens to them.

My arguments are precise and direct at issue. The logic is impeccable. Either address the logic and my premises which they are based on or don’t engage in conversation with me.

Then nothing stands in the way to publish your theories in an established physics magazine.

But just to repeat: I haven’t seen any single flawless argument, only a lot of misunderstanding of even the most basic physical principles. I haven’t seen one logical reaction on an argument of mine.

Scott Mayers - 13 August 2013 02:58 AM

You’re consistently addressing how I present myself not the argument itself.

Yes. In the first place you should present your ideas so clearly that its thread of argumentation can be clearly recognised, even by me. Secondly, if you want to be heard, you should do it that way. Your hubris is just too big compared to the quality of understanding of physics. Nobody will want to listen to you in that way. Lois is completely right.

Scott Mayers - 13 August 2013 02:58 AM

The title itself is not the actual content. While it may say, ‘hey, your basic ideas are wrong…’, the content provides the justification for it.

It doesn’t. You just try. I gave you advise how you might get heard. If your pride stands in the way to do that, well, then let it be.

Scott Mayers - 13 August 2013 02:58 AM

And those of you few who think that any forum that places establishment to uphold a particular viewpoint or be banished to the ghetto or concentration camps deserves no respect from me and shall never complain if and when it happens to them.!

I have the impression that you exaggerate a little, my friend. I even demanded of you to bring your ideas in a more concise way, but your pride stands in the way.

You guys have not even attempted to present what or where you presume that I err in my arguments.

Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge your errors does not make you right.

Instead, you have focused your attacks on irrelevancies. You have dictated to me that I do not understand the present science. You have not established that my knowledge is lacking anything in the present arguments. You have not explained the relevance of requiring me to present knowledge beyond the scope of this area. You have not reduced my arguments to an absurdity, via reasoning.

Well, if you would give us something coherent to examine we might be able to refute them precisely, but what you have written to date is so far off base it isn’t even wrong. GdB has done an admirable job of wading through your babble and pointing out errors, but instead of countering with clear explanations of why you think you are right you fire back with emotion laden accusations and more layers of convoluted reasoning.

You have shown that you prefer to insult me for not supporting your common belief. I suggest you abort skepticism and atheism since I am more than certain that we are in the vast minority. You’re clearly hypocrites. Provide a reason why I must place my faith in you. You have not shown your superiority of reasoning but demonstrated your abilities to attempt rhetorical diversions.

Easy there fella. You’re getting close to the deep end.

You have shown that you do not respect logical argument…

No, we have shown we do not respect someone who starts off saying one of the foundations of modern physics, which has passed every test for the last 100 years, is wrong and then presents a simplistic, naive and unsound hypothesis.

... and especially that obtained by premises of observation, something you only pretend that you adhere to.

You repeatedly ignore observations and then turn around and accuse us of ignoring them. Can’t have it both ways, Scott. Unless you are referring to the crackpot idea that the premise of observation is science’s first mistake.

For instance, besides your own ignorance to the Cosmological Principles (both Perfect and Non-), you haven’t addressed how or why you would hold to the belief that time itself does not require consistency against our empirical capabilities to determine it.

This is why I asked you to explain how GPS works. Our little car units would send us off course in a hurry if GPS did not take time dilation into account.

If it is your view that the popular view in the present paradigm is to hold, your trust in it holds the same accountability to justify it as a Christian is to their positive presumptions.

For the one-billionth time, the present paradigm is a paradigm because it has been tested repeatedly and found to work. Religion fails every empirical test.

If you were so much wiser than me, you should be responsible to justify your particular understanding by addressing the premises of the very contemporary science you believe in and for which I referred to in my arguments as a basis for the skepticism.

Science works. Deal with it.

By your current attitudes and behaviors, you have demonstrated that you are no different than cyber-bullies who can hide behind anonymous display names and gang up with popular supporters. I only feel sorry for you and will not be beaten just because of it. My arguments are precise and direct at issue. The logic is impeccable.

No, your logic is not impeccable. Your logic is deeply flawed.

Either address the logic and my premises which they are based on or don’t engage in conversation with me.

We have addressed your logic or, more precisely, your lack thereof. Your obstinate refusal to engage in honest give-and-take does not support your hypothesis. Don’t forget, you are the one claiming Einstein was wrong and you can develop a better theory than one of the great scientists in history, all without benefit of academic training. As you’ve pointed out, your lack of academic credentials does not in itself mean your hypothesis is wrong. However, the explanations you have offered are very wrong on many levels, and demonstrate only a superficial knowledge of physics. If your hypothesis turns out to be correct you will be hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time alongside Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and Planck. I’m betting on crackpot.

Signature

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.